welcome to amanpour on pbs. billionaire mark zuckerberg faces a tougher second day on capitol hill, and admits that cambridge analytica harvested his private data. christopher wily, whistle blower who broke the scandal, and tech expert guide us through the next steps. plus, president trump warns missiles will be coming to syria and hits out at russia for backing president assad. who he dubs a gas killing animal. the former u.s. secretary of state madeline albright on options on trump's table.

♪ ♪ good evening, everyone. and welcome to the program. i'm cristian amanpour in london. tens of millions around the world want to know what mark zuckerberg is going to do to protect their privacy. it is day two, facing the music on capitol hill, for the facebook ceo. he has been polite, contrite, and by most accounts, managed to do himself and his company no harm. but questions about facebook's unauthorized sharing of users' data persists. this round of crisis for the company was tryinger eretrigger scandal which compromised information of up to 87 million users. testifying before the u.s. house energy and commerce committee, zuckerberg revealed his own data, h been exposed by the firm as well. >> was your data included in the data sold to the malicious third parties? your personal data? >> yes.

>> it was? are you willing to change your business model in the interest of protecting individual privacy? >> congresswoman, we have made and are continuing to make changes to reduce the amount of data -- >> are you willing to change your business model in the interest of protecti ining individual privacy? >> congresswoman, i am not sure what that means. >> i will follow up. >> the crux of the matter. again and pressed the ceo for transparency and called for legislation. mark zuckerberg may not have testified if not for christopher wily. the whistle blower who dropped the dime on cambridge analytica. christopher wily, what do you make of it, the testimony, all you expected and hoped for? >> no. i think when you look at it. there was a lot of softball questions. there really wasn't that much, i

don't, didn't seem to learn anything. i don't know if anybody learned that much about facebook. i think that is in part because when you have, you know, senators, and, members of congress that don't really understand technology it is sort of look watch your granddad try to fix the vcr. >> yikes, that bad. that bad? >> yeah. >> well, you know what. i want to ask you, do you -- what do you make of the -- constant round. i said he was contrite. but he has been contrite for many, many years. senator -- >> 15 years. >> senator blumenthal brought a chart, over the years, as crises arise, he apologize. what makes this any different? >> well, actions speak louder than word. so, i think -- you know we have to wait and see. what, what they actually do. and, more broadly, you know, the actual questioning, i mean, it is, it is, it its the role of -- of our legislators, not just the

united states around the world to actually ask tough questions. i think we all need to start actually prompting our, representatives to start asking questions. >> the great silicone tech giant reporter said the same thing. reporters are treating mark zuckerberg and other as i if th were papier-mache, fragile. >> let me turn to the professor at university of north carolina and specializes in social impact of technology. her column in "the new york times," we know how to protect our self from facebook, which begs the question why aren't we doing it then? so why are we not doing it? before i get to the specific testimony? >> i think the way the senators struggled with keeping up with technical details is a clue. a lot of what is happening is behind the scenes and obscure. we don't really understand all of the data being surveilled. all the data collected. the way we tracked, the way it

operates. kind of hidden from the view. and been allowed to go like this in the digital economy for too long. and i think these scandals are the first team weetzransitionin. how do we do oversight. >> one of the sound bites we played in the intro ducts. one of the congress people was trying to get zuckerberg to say if he would change his business model. you have written a lot about that. the business model is actually what the whole system, you know, how it was designed in first place. what, what -- can the answer to that be? >> so, the core issue really is the business model. that's why mark zuckerberg has been aapproximately jazz i apol facebook, apologizing for face mesh. this model of collecting enormous amount of data about people. and not just collected on facebook. facebook tracks you as you

browse, the web, through, through tracking pixels. facebook tracks peel who never logged on to facebook. creates shadow profiles. tracks you across devices. it buys data in countries, where it is about you from data aggregators, uses this data to sell us, our eyeballs, our attention to advertisers who pay for that finely tuned targeting. that happens screen by screen. and that business model also optimizes the algorithms shape how facebook operates keeping us longer on the site. one of the parameters which means things that go viral which includes misinformation can be promoted by facebook's algorithm. in combination, the core issue. extensive data surveillance with little oversight. targeting that facebook allows. the fact that our attention is sold basically to the highest bidder often who ever it may be. around the world with so few

people. very little staff. mostly automated in ways that are error prone. keeps throwing up scandals. he keeps apologizing. but we have to address. is this really how we want to run our digital economy? i think it is time to say we can do things differently. >> differently. i think written this and talked about it. that the actual customer needs to be the user. not these ad giants. not the people. right? >> yeah one of the things that i think we really need to sort of take a step back and look at is that, you know. when we look at building standards. safety standards for automobiles, right. we first awfull, we don't defer the industries. we look at what is safe for people. secondly, we don't, we don't, let you know, legislator whose don't understand the issue, you know, manage the entire process. subject to lobbyists. we create building codes. we have expert.

engineers paid to create, building codes to make sure that we have a safe environment that electricity wiring and all that is safe. so why isn't it that we don't have -- why don't we have technology, safety code. why don't we have data science safety code. why don't we have the same sort of level of technical scrutiny that we apply to construction or auto manufacturing that we, for our own, our data and democracy. >> a little bit of what one of the senators was trying to got to. senator john kennedy. talking abut base aing about ba privacy agreement. said it was awful. let's play that. we will talk about it. >> start with the use ear agreement. here its whultd everybody has been trying to till you. an i say this, gently. your use e your user agreement sucks. you can spot me 75 iq points itch i can figure it out. you can figure it out.

the purpose of the use ear agreement is to cover facebook's rear end. it's not to inform your users about their rights. >> i mean, i think he was obviously playing to the crowd. trying to look tough. but he is basically right. >> yeah, i think, part of the nature of informed consent is informed bit. you can't have informed consent if you are not informing users. broadly, having a policy of reasonable expectation on most of the tech platforms would be a welcome development. because, itf an app is doing something, platform is doing something not reasonably expected. you sthunt houldn't be allowed it. irrespective of what the terms and conditions say. >> he also said, so help me, if you don't fix it, we are going to regulate you. it is clear that the congress doesn't want to do that. they dent waon't want to regula. >> see, an area that is calling out for regulation. this has the to do with the integrity of the democracy. this has to do with, safety. this has the to do with, weather or not we have informed

citizens. this is, this is, absolutely, the role of regulators. in fact, in a lot of the world including here in europe. it is regulated. very well regulated. that hasn't stopped face book from performing well in europe making money in europe. we have to do it in a framework that respects privacy and consent as people. i don't understand why facebook would have a problem with that. >> they famously keep seeing, after the scandal that you revealed, chris, they said, this wasn't a breach. it was all consensual. >> they tried to sue the guardian over it. >> it wasn't informed consent. it scant be informed consent the way the digital economy works for two reasons. so much is happening behind the scenes. on android, apparently, users were kind of tricked. i've talked to tons of people nobody knew they accepted this. to uploading all of their sms

messages and who they talk to, outside of messenger. just when you are saying accept, buried in the fine print. users aren't being inforpd. t -- informed. this is not informed consent. how can you inform team how the data will be used ten years down the line. all the data facebook has on you can be used to predict if you are likely to be depressed or not. a new development. how are we supposed to consent that is a new development inferred from the data. third thing that speaks to complexity of this is that. mark zuckerberg was asked, does your product track people when they're logged out? he said no. the answer is yes. he was asked, does your product track people across devices? he said i don't know. the answer is yes. >> how could he say i don't know? the thing is, either he was asked, does facebook collect browsing history outside of

facebook. he was, can you download that? he was like, yes you can download that, not in the download. there are two option here's. even mark zuckerberg doesn't know his product. itch he doesn't know his product. how are we supposed to consent to something complex. the other option, they're telling us what his product can do. nooel neither option is great. >> you are not for deleting the facebook account. you have written, hashtag deleting. >> i'm not either. that's the wrong approach. because it's like saying if you don't want to be in a car crash, don't use cars. don't want to be electrocute don't use electricity. this is here to stay. >> it does have a lot of good things. >> what are the good things? >> facebook can be great. there is all sorts of things that we, people can use facebook as anti-censorship. i use facebook products to connect with friends. family. a lot of civic functions i cannot participate in without

facebook. i'm not saying it is a bad thing. i'm saying this is a bad way to do it. also really telling yesterday. one of the senators asked, mark zuckerberg who is your competitor? he was look i don't know. he couldn't name one. that's the problem, there is no effective competitor to facebook, for so many personal, social, interpersonal functions. that the idea that you can just get off it is not reasonable. also if you have never been on it, they have a shadow profile of you anyway. so just, not using it doesn't get you out of tracking. >> that is also. >> literally ten second. chris. go a. >> why we have to look at it. as a utility. there isn't a competitor. can't be a competitor. so scale it isn't. let's treat it like a utility. >> i thinkthe -- disappointed. refusing to come here. most users are outside of the united states. >> facebook is global. why aren't you engaging with

others. talk to damian collins and the committee here, they have jurisdiction over the cambridge analytica. >> i talked to her earlier today, because in the european union, they are brink out the big guns and talking about regulation. late next month, the eu will roll out data privacy legislation to protect citizens. and i spoke with the woman who is leading that effort as i said. the commissioner, vera gerova. she hopes zuckerberg follows through on the pledge he's made. if he doesn't there will be consequences. welcome off to the how program. >> thank you very much for having me. >> can i ask you first what you make of mark zuckerberg's testimony. do you think he is answered the questions, been asked the questions that you wanted to hear? >> i am glad that he is promising to take the weaknesses of facebook seriously. i am personally happy he is using the eu upcoming rules of

better protection of privacy people as the global standard. in other word, he says he will not apply european rules in europe, but globally. >> the response to the congressional testimony by mark zuckerberg. she tweeted, that it its good that we have stringent rules in the european union. who ever breaks those will feel the consequences. what are the consequences? harmonizing sanctions for the whole europe. they scan be rather draconic, massive harm can appear on the european market. we can go up to 4% of the, annual, of the company. i think these are the penalties which really can make a difference. i believe strongly that such sanctions have very strong

deterrents effect. >> you, yourself have deleted your facebook account. why did you do that? are you making a stand? or something that turned up on your account that was untenable. >> i didn't like to be on facebook. i am a politician. i what i had on my facebook account was really only messages attacking me and attacking the people who i defend. because, in the european commission, i am the defender of, of the vulnerable people of, of minorities of the games and lesbians and i am the defender of civil liberties and you can imagine -- how strongly i might have been targeted by, or affected by those who do not wish to enable the people to live in peace in europe. that's why i simply didn't like it. and i, decided to, to cancel,

the facebook account. and, then i was criticized. many people -- said how could you have done it? we need to keep the freedom to stay in and get out. >> strong words. thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> now we turn to a big story. that is, the, the impending apparently, accountability. for the alleged use of chemical weapons. donald trump rach effotcheted u rhetoric. he said military action is imminent. russia vows to shoot down any missiles. get ready, russia. they will be coming, nice, new, smart. you shouldn't be partners with a gas killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it.

>> well in this deadly back and forth bantor, smart missiles should fly towards terrorists not toward lawful governments. as the the president was hunkering down with advisers at the white house on syria strategy this week i speck oke madeline albright. she started telling me she is concerned because only a cohesive and comprehensive plan has a chance of working now. i have off to tell you it is hard to know what is going on. it is hard in the clinton administrations, when in fact there were detailed, well prepared meetings of the various -- principles that were involved in decision making. and, i think that it is unclear at the moment, how that works. president trump seems to just kind of make decisions or tweet before that kind of consultation

has taken place. john bolton is somebody that has -- has not always exhibited collegiality when he has been in government before. what is needed. one thing to respond to this attack. it needs to be done militarily. it needs to be done in a strategy. we do not know what the strategy is, since last week, president trump was saying he was going to withdraw troops. and, and, now he is, he is, kind of, we have no idea, what direction it is going. so, i will be very interested, also, to the extent that an outcider can follow the decision making process to see how a strategy is formulated. what has to be happening immediately. what's medium term. what's long term. you better than anyone, because i have listened to you so much on this. know the tragedy of syria.

and that in so many ways it has become a proxy war for everything that has happening in the middle east. >> do you think -- that one of president trump's must dos is to get a coalition together. and of course, you know he hasn't been the most friendly when it comes to al lies or alliances. i think a coalition would be important. i was frankly appalled when i saw president putin and president rohani meeting about syria. and no america there. i know what happens when america is not in meetings. we need to be back in there. done with a coalition. so i hope president trump can figure out how to, to, honor. the, the responsibilities of our friend and allies. when we need them in such a complicated case. >> you just mentioned. put tichinin, you were one of t

first if not the first u.s. official to meet putin caretaker president hadn't been installed as president of russia. late 90s. 2000. give us the benefit of your knowledge of him back then. how you think he will respond to any action in syria. he has threatened against it? >> well the first time i met him at an apec meeting while he was caretaker. he seemed very kind of small and some body trying to engratiate himself with everybody. next time i met him. i went to moscow to prepare the summit of 2000. then at the summit itself. and by then, i have to tell you. he was somebody that was, very well informed. he, he was in the meetings without notes. and took notes. knew what he was going to say.

a smart man. play aid weak hand very well. we can't forget that his background is a kgb agent. he is playing a hand well. we need to respond to it in strength. >> what does that mean, let's say, if president trump decides, as one of these israeli former air force commanders told me. the only thing that would work in terms tough getting rid of any, threat of more barrel bombs and chemical drops, is to take out all of the airfields. i mean, russia is so heavily on the ground. what, what do you think russia would do? >> i am not just for using military force. i think that we need to look at, the full spectrum of tools. i think, that the sanctions that are finally been put on. need to be really enforced. i do think there need to be diplomating contacts. and then, i don't want to be a military planner. i am not. if i were secretary of state. i want to know what the pentagon has in mind. what is the long term here.

there is no solution unless a political settlement. where the various parties are involved. where there is a plan for what the next steps are. the problem has been. this is always kind of immediate gratification on something. we need a longer term plan and combination of tools. >> can i ask you a question about personal style and context? president trump was angry in front of a group of generals, discussing syria policy this week. he was furious, venting abut the fbi raid on his, his lawyers' office. oh, we do have to discuss syria. because you want through some of this with the scandal surrounding president clinton.

what can we expect, from a president, who has got all of this other stuff on his mind. while facing some of the most challenging, difficult, sensitive, world issues. i do think that -- obviously, we were all troubled by what happened with, president clinton's personal life. i can assure you he had, a charact character -- allowed him to be sear yaus b serious about foreign policy, use or the government. they did not interfere in this. we did difficult, foreign policy, use in 1998. the question here, is president trump a disciplined thinker. does he delve into issues. i haven't met him. all i know is what i read.

the bottom line is i think that, one needs a decision making process. as i described earlier. and not tweeting on things as important as this. being able to concentrate. really understanding the depth and problems of the issues. i think it is very important to get the decision making process into shape. when you are in a job. sec sta secretary of state. have vision, a plan, and to be able to respect what other people are saying to you, and, and, then assimilate what is going on, and then, make a decision calmly. >> mad reline albright has much more to say on global affairs, in challenging times. tune in tomorrow night for the interview when the former

secretary of state, talks about the chilling new force to be faced down in her new book "fascism, a warning." that ate for our program tonight. thank you for watching amanpour on pbs. and join us again tomorrow night. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪